December 29, 2013

While Berkshire Hathaway quietly assumed leadership among primary market structured settlement annuity providers during 2013, J.G. Wentworth (JGW) continued to consolidate its control of the secondary market with the same "subtlety" and ubiquitousness that have characterized its late-night television advertisements.

JGW's 2013 apogee occurred November 8 when JGWPT Holdings Inc.'sIPO produced what is currently the only publicly traded structured settlement company. The IPO was poorly received with JGWPT Inc. reducing the initial offering price of its common stock from $19-$22 per share to $14.00 which then traded down to the high $12s.

The stated purposes for JGWPT's IPO were to pay down some of JGW's $572 million debt and to provide its pre-IPO equity holders (JLL Partners) an opportunity to earn additional profits. Post-IPO, JLL Partners continues to hold a 39% economic interest and a 63% voting interest in JGWPT while four of its partners sit on the company's Board of Directors.

JGWPT's common stock, however, now trades on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: JGW) and closed Friday (December 27, 2013) at $17.10 per share. At least one analyst has informed S2KM he believes the stock is currently worth at least $20 per share based upon JGW's "dominant franchise", access to securitization markets, low costs relative to competitors and "incalculable returns on capital", among other factors.

Problems and Controversies in 2013

As S2KM reported in this prior blog post, JGW, which was founded in 1995, had experienced a tumultuous history prior to 2013 - and problems and controversies continued to plague the company during 2013:

Abandoned Sale - Bloomberg News reported in January 2013 that JLL Partners had abandoned plans to sell the company after bids failed to meet expectations. Earlier reports had indicated that JLL Partners was seeking a $1 billion purchase price for JGW from private-equity firms.

Ratings Downgrade - Moody's Investors Service (Moody's) announced in February 2013 a downgrade of its Corporate Family Rating (CFR) for JGW from B3 to Caa1. Under Moody's credit rating scale, "Caa1" signifies a long-term rating "rated as poor quality and very high credit risk." Moody's CFR ratings for JGW are separate and distinct from financial agency ratings applicable to JGW structured settlement securitizations which historically have been rated as high quality and low risk investments.

Shareholder Distribution - Moody's announcement confirmed "JGW is undergoing a leveraged recapitalization that will result in a tripling of the company's corporate debt as it pays its shareholders a very substantial dividend....Net proceeds from the $425 million Senior Secured Term Loan issuance will be used to finance a $309 million capital distribution to JGW's shareholders as well as to repay an existing $142 million term loan."

Falsified Court Orders - JGWPT's amended S-1 statement, filed October 28, 2013 in anticipation of its public offering, included the following statement under a section titled "RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS OPERATIONS: ... there have in the past and may be in the future deficiencies in court orders obtained on our behalf by third parties that result in those court orders being invalid, including as a result of failures to perform according to our requirements and acts of fraud,..." That statement apparently references as many as 100 falsified court orders in New York approving JGW structured settlement transfers.

Brenston Case - The Illinois Supreme Court denied Peachtree Settlement Funding's petition for appeal of the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals' decision in the Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston case. The earlier Court of Appeals decision held the Illinois state court, which had previously approved transfers requested by Brenston 1) had a duty to enforce anti-assignment provisions in Brenston's original structured settlement documentation; and 2) had no authority under the Illinois protection act to approve the transfer petitions - even though all of the relevant parties had waived the anti-assignment provisions. In an Amicus curiae brief, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) asserted the Appellate Court decision will render the Illinois transfer statute "a practical nullity"

NASP Conference - In addition to Shapiro's comments, NASP's 2013 annual conference focused on controversial issues which have historically divided the primary and secondary structured settlement markets. In her keynote remarks, NASP President Patricia LaBorde encouraged diverse perspectives and re-inforced NASP's policy of politically unobstructed learning. "We want to hear from all structured settlement stakeholders - even if they disagree with us or don't like who we are," LaBorde stated. "We are here to listen. We are here to improve."

METLife Split Payment Policy - During his NASP presentation, Executive Director Earl Nesbitt reported a controversial new business practice that is troubling JGW and other transfer companies. MetLife apparently is now actively opposing transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements. Under such servicing arrangements, structured settlement annuity providers typically remit the entirety of specific periodic payments to transfer companies to administer even when the original recipient/transferor only assigns a portion of the payments.

Former Executives' Lawsuit - Another 2013 JGW nadir occurred in October when two former JGW executives and directors filed a Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against current JGW CEO David Miller, three current JGW Directors and multiple JGW affiliate companies seeking to enforce a Tax Receivables Agreement (TRA) under which they claim they are owed approximately $35 million. A copy of the Complaint, which is posted on the structured settlement wiki, highlights JGW's complex organizational history as well as a shareholder focus disconnected from the welfare of its customers.

SEC Addresses Structured Settlement Transfers

Responding in part to concerns about secondary market business practices, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Office of Investor Education and Advocacy issued an Investor Bulletin in 2013 titled "Pension or Settlement Income Streams: What You Need to Know Before Buying or Selling Them".

The Investor Bulletin highlights questions potential sellers and investors should ask before proceeding with proposed structured settlement transfers and includes a number of additional warnings and resource links.

A responding article , written by two industry leaders, characterized the SEC Bulletin as "misleading and in some cases inaccurate concerning the sale of structured settlement payment streams and factored structured settlements as an investment vehicle." The authors assert the SEC Investor Bulletin should have clarified the following features of structured settlement factoring transactions:

"Always court ordered"

"No negative tax consequences to the seller"

"Investors' rights"

Secondary Market Growth

Despite problems and controversies, the U.S. structured settlement secondary market appears to have experienced additional growth during 2013. Based upon various industry sources, and subject to future revisions based upon subsequent information, S2KM estimates the 2013 structured settlement secondary market has increased approximately 7% compared with 2012 resulting from approximately 12,800 transfers and $385 million PV of secondary market purchases.

Approximately 149,000 structured settlement transfers have occurred since 1986;

Involving approximately 74,000 recipients - many of whom have made multiple transfers;

With approximately $4.4 billion PV in aggregate sums paid to those recipients.

For an average of approximately $30,000 per transfer.

For comparison, S2KM estimates the primary market has sold approximately $139 billion PV of structured settlement annuities to approximately 800,000 recipients since 1975 with an average premium of approximately $174,000.

For additional S2KM reporting about the secondary market, see the structured settlement wiki. For additional S2KM 2013 annual reports, see:

Cathy Brenston resolved a medical malpractice case against the University of Illinois Board of Trustees in 2003 with a structured settlement.

Subsequent to her settlement, Brenston completed multiple factoring transactions with Peachtree Settlement Funding (Peachtree) all of which were approved by Illinois Circuit Courts (Sangamon and Peoria Counties) in accordance with the Illinois transfer statute.

All transactions were closed and funded. Brenston was paid. The structured settlement obligors and annuity issuers acknowledged and implemented the court orders.

Brenston filed lawsuits in Cook County in 2011 to void the prior transfer orders arguing anti-assignment clauses in the settlement agreement and the qualified assignment agreements prevented the transfer courts from exercising jurisdiction. The defendants included:

Peachtree

Peachtree's transfer lawyer

Brenston's transfer counsel

The structured settlement obligors and annuity issuers

The defendant in the original lawsuit

After Peachtree invoked an arbitration clause, Brenston re-filed the lawsuits in Sangamon and Peoria Counties where Peachtree moved to dismiss the petitions on the grounds that:

The transfer courts had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the orders;

Brenston has already received the financial benefits of the orders;

Brenston provided no reason to vacate said orders; and

The statute of limitations had expired.

The trial court granted Peachtree's motions to dismiss and denied Brenston's motions to reconsider and motions for leave to file an amended petition.

Brenston appealed arguing the Sangamon and Peoria County courts erred in dismissing her petitions where the pleadings sufficiently showed that the orders approving the transfers were obtained by fraud, and therefore void ab initio and subject to challenge at any time.

An Illinois 5th District panel, sitting for the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals, agreed with Brenston's argument and issued its decision - even though Peachtree and Brenston had:

The transfer court had a duty to enforce that provision and "had no authority" under the Illinois transfer statute to approve the proposed transfers.

The proposed transfers were improperly filed in Sangamon and Peoria Counties instead of Cook County where Brenston resided.

Brenston's transfer orders are "void ab initio" because:

Peachtree did not file all settlement documents with the transfer court.

Peachtree concealed "by omission" the existence of the anti-assignment provision which "omission was material".

The conduct of Peachtree and it's attorney amounted to an "affirmative falsehood and a fraud upon the trial court".

Impact of Brenston

An Amicus curiae brief filed by the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) states that the Appellate Court decision will render the Illinois transfer statute "a practical nullity".

"Without the certainty and finality of a court order, there is no viable secondary market,"the NASP brief states."Because every structured settlement contains boilerplate language that purports to limit or restrict assignability, every Illinois court approved transfer could be subject to challenge at any time."

Or, did the parties to the structured settlement waive the anti-assignment provision?

Although IRC 5891 and state structured settlement protection acts set forth procedures and conditions allowing transfers of structured settlement payment rights, courts continue to enforce anti-assignment restrictions when parties to the original structured settlement object.

Most transfer courts, however, have held that the anti-assignment restrictions are not self-executing and have granted transfers when no one objects. Objections to transfers by obligors and annuity issuers have become increasingly rare since the enactment of IRC 5891 and the state protection acts.

The Brenston Case

Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston represents a high profile and controversial case where an Illinois Appellate Court overruled prior state court approval of structured settlement transfers based upon anti-assignment restrictions - even though the parties to the original structured settlement waived the anti-assignment provisions. The case currently is subject to a petition for review by the Illinois Supreme Court.

In the Brenston case, an Illinois 5th District panel, sitting for the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals, determined Brenston’s settlement agreement contained an enforceable anti-assignment provision. As a result, the panel decided the state court, which had previously approved requested transfers, had a duty to enforce the anti-assignment provision and “it had no authority under the Act to approve” the transfer petitions.

In other words, despite the existence of the Illinois transfer statute, the Appellate panel declared court orders approving assignments to be "void ab initio", as a matter of Illinois law, whenever structured settlement documentation purports to limit assignability.

If the Illinois Supreme Court upholds the Brenston appellate decision, or decides not to review it, the case would render the Illinois transfer statute "a practical nullity", according to an Amicus curiae brief filed by the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP).

"Without the certainty and finality of a court order, there is no viable secondary market,"the NASP brief states."Because every structured settlement contains boilerplate language that purports to limit or restrict assignability, every Illinois court approved transfer could be subject to challenge at any time."

Public Policy

The validity of assignments, including structured settlement transfers, depends in part on public policy issues. Transfers arguably undermine the fundamental purpose of structured settlements - to provide spendthrift protection for injury victims and their dependents.

This public policy perspective is captured in the statutory history of the structured settlement tax exclusion. To qualify, IRC 130 provides in part "periodic payments cannot be accelerated, deferred, increased, or decreased by the recipient of such payments"

Over time, many structured settlement documents have expanded this IRC 130 prohibition to include "transferred, assigned, mortgaged or encumbered" or words to that effect. (emphasis added). Although anti-assignment provisions are incorporated into many state workers compensation statutes, they are not specifically required by IRC 130, I04(a)(1) or 104(a)(2).

Factoring advocates offer competing public policy arguments to support structured settlement transfers. Unanticipated needs or poorly constructed settlement plans may necessitate immediate cash and outweigh other public policy considerations. Factoring advocates also criticize the "paternalistic" viewpoint of factoring opponents. They argue the structured settlement recipient, as owner of payment rights, should have the right to decide whether to transfer or assign those rights.

Many other statutes either permit or favor assignment of payments rights. These statutes include the 48 state structured settlement protection acts, IRC 5891, and recent revisions to UCC Article 9 as well as the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Unfortunately, the authors of revised UCC Article 9 did not carefully consider the impact of their revisions on structured settlement transfers which has resulted in conflicting statutory language and interpretations among various states.

Best Practices

The National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) amended its Model Qualified Assignment and Release Agreement following the enactment of IRC 5891 and the Model State Structured Settlement Protection Act. Paragraph 7, titled "Acceleration, Transfer of Payment Rights", now provides:

"None of the Periodic Payments and no rights to or interest in any of the Periodic Payments (all of the foregoing being hereinafter collectively referred to as “Payment Rights”) can be

i. Accelerated, deferred, increased or decreased by any recipient of any of the Periodic Payments; or

ii. Sold, assigned, pledged, hypothecated or otherwise transferred or encumbered, either directly or indirectly, unless such sale, assignment, pledge, hypothecation or other transfer or encumbrance (any such transaction being hereinafter referred to as a “Transfer”) has been approved in advance in a “Qualified Order” as defined in Section 5891(b)(2) of the Code (a “Qualified Order”) and otherwise complies with applicable state law, including without limitation any applicable state structured settlement protection statute.

No Claimant or Successor Payee shall have the power to effect any Transfer of Payment Rights except as provided in sub-paragraph (ii) above, and any other purported Transfer of Payment Rights shall be wholly void. If Payment Rights under this Agreement become the subject of a Transfer approved in accordance with sub-paragraph (ii) above the rights of any direct or indirect transferee of such Transfer shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and any defense or claim in recoupment arising hereunder." (NSSTA's emphasis).

Brenston Status

Peachtree Settlement Funding, the transfer company involved in the Brenston case, has filed a petition for review with the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court will likely act on Peachtree's petition by December, although a decision whether to review could be delayed until February, according to NASP Executive Director Earl Nesbitt who reported on the case during the NASP 2013 Annual Conference. Assuming the petition for review is granted, Nesbitt stated a final decision is not expected for nine to 12 months.

Brenston Issues

NASP President Patricia LaBorde characterized the Brenston case as "troubling" for several reasons during a recent S2KM interview: